Eyewitness testimony and dying declarations of the victim were sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case, despite the absence of established motive.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

1. The instant Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C 1973, [corresponding to Section 415 of the BNS S ] against the judgment & order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang in Session Case No.79/2015 corresponding to Dhaligaon P.S Case No.174/2012 U/S 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS ] by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, RI for 6 months.

2. The criminal law was set in motion by lodging of the Ejahar dated 17.10.2012 by the PW-1, who is the wife of the deceased Nazrul Islam. The Ejahar states that on 17.10.2012 at about 6:45 P.M, the informant’s husband Nazrul Islam was st coming towards his quarter after his duty. When he reached the 1 corridor of the staff quarter, the appellant/convict intentionally shot the deceased with his arms as a result of which the informant’s husband sustained injuries. It is also stated in the Ejahar that on hearing the noise, the informant rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased falling down on the corridor and that while dying, the deceased told the informant that it was the appellant, who had shot him with his duty arms and thereafter, he expired on the spot. Based on this Ejahar, the formal FIR was registered and investigation conducted. On completion of the investigation, the charges were laid against the appellant u/s302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS ].

3. Charge was accordingly framed against the appellant and the appellant having pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced. During the trial, the prosecution adduced evidence through 17 nos. of witnesses.

4. PW-1 is the informant and the wife of the deceased. She deposed that the incident took place around 6:45 P.M on 17.10.2012. She and her husband lived rd on the 3 floor of family quarters beside the S.P Office. Her deceased husband worked in SB (Special Branch). The appellant lived on the ground floor of the same quarters. Every day when her husband used to come home in the evening, she would go downstairs and take his shopping bag. On the day of the incident also, in the evening, on seeing her husband stopping his motorbike she came downstairs and her husband was climbing up. Just then the appellant came out with a carbine in his hand and shot her husband from behind. She screamed and rushed to her husband and appellant ran to his quarter and closed the door. As soon as she got hold of her husband he told her twice that appellant had shot him. The bullet entered through the back of the deceased and exited through his chest. The PW-1 had proved the Ejahar as Exhibit 1 and her signature therein as Exhibit 1 (1).

In her cross-examination PW-1 stated that the appellant worked in the police department, but she did not know his designation. The appellant was not acquainted with them or on visiting terms with her family; she stated that all the residents in the quarters were police personnel. The staircase was adjacent to appellant’s quarter. She denied the suggestion that she did not tell the police that while she was coming down the stairs she witnessed the appellant shooting her husband from behind. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the appellant had not shot her husband and that her husband had not said that the appellant had shot him. She could not say as to how many people had heard her husband saying